Laserfiche WebLink
r•1 -7- <br /> 2 <br /> 3 compensate the --owners. Commissioner Hansen said he .just- wanted to know <br /> 4 who had filled out' the application for a variance, filling in Mr. <br /> 5 Campbell' s name as the owner . <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Mr . Cadwallader stated .that, as an agent to Mr. Campbell, he had signed <br /> 8 both - his own and Mr. Campbell ' s name on. the bottom of the document. He <br /> 9 said -he had filled in Mr. Campbell ' s name as owner because that was what <br /> 10 "I had been told :by' Mr.. Campbell and to the best of my knowledge was <br /> 11 the case. " <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Mr-. Childs indicated he . would check with the. City Attorney to . see <br /> 14 whether the fact that there was an agreement' to sell had any bearing in <br /> 15 view of the fact that the variance goes with the property and not the <br /> 16 owner . He also pointed out that even an error in the hearing notice <br /> 17 would not have nullified the hearing itself. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Commissioner Werenicz suggested the City Attorney also be requested to <br /> 20 look at the probate records to see if Don Flynn was the only person who <br /> 21 could sell this property. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 When Chair Franzese asked Mr. Campbell what he intended to do about the <br /> 24 drainage on the lot, the contractor said he planned to build -a split <br /> *5 level house without a full basement and would provide any swale the City <br /> 6 believed necessary to handle the runoff . He said the company who had <br /> 27 made a soil test of the parcel had not indicated they anticipated any <br /> 28 water problems. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Mr. Hoxmeier said if the grade of that parcel is raised, he certainly <br /> 31 expected to have water problems . Marjorie Shaddrick stated that she -had . <br /> 32 a hard time understanding why the City was considering any development <br /> 33 of this lot since they had turned down a request because the lot was too <br /> 34 small in 1979. The Chair' told her the lot ' s R-2 zoning permitted either <br /> 35 a two or one family dwelling to be constructed there and since the <br /> 36 request for a duplex had been turned down, the owner has every right to <br /> 37 seek approval for a single family residence. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Mr. Childs read the portion of the American Laws on Zoning which he had <br /> 40 included in the agenda packet which applied to "substandard" lots , which <br /> 41 seemed to indicate not allowing the owner to build -at all would be, <br /> 42 considered "taking" of the property for which the City would have to pay <br /> 43 compensation. He said an unreasonable sized house could be regulated, <br /> -44 but since this house would only -be 11 square feet less than the <br /> 45 Ordinance required, the Manager doubted that was possible in this case. <br /> 46' However,, the City can require that the driveway come off Roosevelt and <br /> 47 that . drainage be provided to prevent a negative impact on the neighbors ' <br /> 48 property, he added. <br /> 49 <br /> 4 O - When. .the Manager -said the only other use he perceived for that property <br /> 1 wou-ld'-b'e. a park, Mr. Shaddrick said. he thought some of the neighbors who <br /> -)2 .'-had signed the petition against a house being built there had .children <br /> "53 like, hi"mself and would welcome the . City' s picking up the property for <br /> 54- that-- purpose.: He : indicated that , in view of the .potential for a traffic <br />